Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Banshee16" data-source="post: 3023330" data-attributes="member: 7883">I tend to disagree with the OP.&nbsp; I think that the skills serve as a good way of simulating a character's abilities, and separating them from the *player's* abilities.&nbsp; Most players don't have 18 INT scores, and master diplomacy skills.&nbsp; But a character might.&nbsp; Just as most players are not lethal warriors, but their characters may be.For every statement about a carefully planned encounter being ruined by a lucky diplomacy roll, I'm sure a DM could provide another example where a well-planned encounter or NPC was ruined by a lethal fighter in the party, who butchered an NPC at the wrong time, or killed him despite the fact that you've spent several sessions setting him up to be a recurring villain, or whatever.And with respect to party warriors being upset because the bard used diplomacy to neutralize possible combat encounters, well...where's the love for the bard?&nbsp; Here's a character who is built *as* a diplomat....you could wonder how the bard's player feels about the party tank who keeps slaughtering every NPC the bard was built to be able to deal with diplomatically in the game.I think a well-built game should have the option for characters to resolve actions and encounters through social skills, combat skills, or magic.&nbsp; As such, it wouldn't be fair if there were rules to resolve actions of 2 of the 3 types, but not the third.&nbsp; There must be rules for all 3.Now, if someone wanted to say that the diplomacy rules aren't well-balanced against combat rules, or combat vs. magic, well, then, I think that's a better argument.Banshee</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Banshee16, post: 3023330, member: 7883"] I tend to disagree with the OP. I think that the skills serve as a good way of simulating a character's abilities, and separating them from the *player's* abilities. Most players don't have 18 INT scores, and master diplomacy skills. But a character might. Just as most players are not lethal warriors, but their characters may be. For every statement about a carefully planned encounter being ruined by a lucky diplomacy roll, I'm sure a DM could provide another example where a well-planned encounter or NPC was ruined by a lethal fighter in the party, who butchered an NPC at the wrong time, or killed him despite the fact that you've spent several sessions setting him up to be a recurring villain, or whatever. And with respect to party warriors being upset because the bard used diplomacy to neutralize possible combat encounters, well...where's the love for the bard? Here's a character who is built *as* a diplomat....you could wonder how the bard's player feels about the party tank who keeps slaughtering every NPC the bard was built to be able to deal with diplomatically in the game. I think a well-built game should have the option for characters to resolve actions and encounters through social skills, combat skills, or magic. As such, it wouldn't be fair if there were rules to resolve actions of 2 of the 3 types, but not the third. There must be rules for all 3. Now, if someone wanted to say that the diplomacy rules aren't well-balanced against combat rules, or combat vs. magic, well, then, I think that's a better argument. Banshee [/QUOTE]

Verification